Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

concertina226 (2447056) writes with this excerpt from IBTimes: "Apple has been granted a patent for interchangeable camera lenses — which could be used on the up-coming iPhone 6. The application was granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office in remarkably quick time, according to Patently Apple. Patent No. 8,687,299 has been granted to Apple today for 'Bayonet attachment mechanisms,' i.e. a bayonet mount that is able to securely attach lenses to an iOS device, such as an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad. A bayonet mount is a fastening mechanism which is typically seen on cameras, used to attach lenses to the camera body. At the moment, there is no adjustable camera lens system in existence for smartphones, although there are lots of third party macro lens products that consumers can buy to clip onto their smartphone."

More like the Nikon F...wait...no, looks like it goes on clockwise...like a Canon and every *other* bayonet mount in the history of photography, then.
Seriously, except for the scale, how is this novel and non-obvious?

"The attachment mechanisms may release from one another in a drop event or other incidence of force applied thereto by allowing a bayonet to radially move outwardly out of contact with a corresponding bayonet of the second attachment mechanism."

Good riddance. It's fun having a single April fool's story, and having to spot it. Having all the stories be complete nonsense for a day, and thus losing all the real news for that day, was a pain in the arse.

Hush you! Actually reading patents might make them sound less idiotic, and you know how much complex details ruin a perfectly good rant! You have to simplify them down to a single line and then scream that *insert company that is popular to hate* is patenting the wheel again.

So if you don't want to be sued by Apple, you only have to design your own lens management system or use an existing one and pay Nikon/Canon/Leica for rights. Simple enough - no much of a story really.

When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?

Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?

1080p HD recording, multi-camera/lens capability, and 4G speeds rivaling landline speeds. I don't even know why the hell we even call them phones anymore. Today's cellular device is anything but, and 90% of those features we never asked for, but they sure do generate a shitload of privacy-robbing revenue don't they...

When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?

Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?

So you complain that Apple does something so nobody but them can put something you would never want on any phone you would ever want? Why?

So, you get all these features in a phone you never asked for, pay hundreds of dollars for it (which costs are partially driven from litigation), and then you want to bitch when all those neat features rob you of every bit of privacy in every way possible, and yet you like it because every cool app price tag says "free"?

Let's also not forget you're buying a new battery in 6 months because of all those features you never asked for are sucking your battery dry all damn day.

When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?

Uh, more to the point, when Apple wins a patent, why would you assume it was ever something we asked for or needed in a cell phone?

So you complain that Apple does something so nobody but them can put something you would never want on any phone you would ever want? Why?

For the very reason we're having this conversation. Or more to the point, so we can avoid having this conversation in the future.

Marketing useless features and wasting millions on pointless patents (round corners anyone?) does nothing but clog up the entire system, and shines a questionable light on any patent and the system that protects it, no matter how valid or worthwhile.

Yes, because Apple encompasses the entirety of the problems in the USPTO.

I own and run Apple hardware. This has nothing to do with a vendor, and has everything to do with common fucking sense, which clearly isn't common, but thanks for verifying that.

Learn to focus the hate where it belongs; on the issue at hand within the patent system itself, and the legal system allowing the nonsense to continue. It only hurts everyone else, and ensures that we as consumers are given no choice when corruption controls

When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?

Let's see... The claims sections of the patent in question describes the use of bayonet connections for lenses. The description section of the patent describes the use of bayonet connections for lenses. The drawings section of the patent shows a phone and lenses and the details of a lens connections...

"Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: Holy Jesus! What is that? What the fuck is that? WHAT IS THAT, PRIVATE PYLE?Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, an Android smartphone, sir!Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: An Android smartphone?Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, yes, sir!Gunnery Sergeant Hartman: How did it get here?Private Gomer Pyle: Sir, I took it from the mess hall, sir!"

This is an interesting variation of the camera lens bayonet mount that includes a "breakaway mode" if it is dropped that allows the lens to snap out without damaging the device or the mount. With a normal DSLR lens mount, that doesn't happen and the lens will remain firmly attached until one of the mounts breaks, whereas this one will release instead of breaking.

Each different type of bayonet mount will be patented - eg. Nikon F mount, Pentax K mount, Canon EF mount. Apple patenting a set of specifications for a mount is a perfectly understandable concept - they're not trying to patent a completely generic mount...

Patent No. 8,687,299 has been granted to Apple today for 'Bayonet attachment mechanisms,' i.e. a bayonet mount that is able to securely attach lenses to an iOS device, such as an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad.

Great.

Stick a black synthetic stock and a large capacity SD card on that bad boy, and Diane Feinstein will demand it be banned.

It's something that has existed for years and that is extremely obvious, yet somehow they were granted a patent on it because "on a smartphone".

Funny how the patent doesn't mention "phone" anywhere - nor "computer" or "internet" for that matter. But hey, you claim shit like that all the time, so what else is new. Frankly, I blame you - Apple gets all these patents because you are so dumb.

It is weird. It is weird that one can rehash a bayonet mount, combine it with some other existing idea, i.e. a breakaway mechanism, and patent it.

It is also weird that companies can be given patents for specific implementations of existing techniques (i.e. Canon and Nikon's bayonet mounts).

Really at the end of the day, America has found yet another way of gathering more power. By allowing as much material as possible to be patented by US entities, regardless of whether the material deserves a patent or not,

I hope this is an April Fools joke. How long have cameras had a bayonet lens mount?

"Bayonet mount" is a generic term, kind of like "screw" - I.E. just as there are a wide variety of screws and heads, specific mounts can and do vary wildly from each other.

Different specific mounts have different features and performance. For example, the bayonet mounts used for light bulbs aren't suitable for lenses because their depth would make a camera unwieldy, complicate optical design, and wear quickly because of the weight of the lens on the relatively small pins. Hence, lens mounts use typically tabs rather than pins. Light bulb mounts also suck at maintaining close and rigid alignment - something a lens mount absolutely must have. Lens mounts also use different retention features than a light bulb mount to facilitate quick changes and reduce the relative force required.

I hope this is an April Fools joke. How long have cameras had a bayonet lens mount?

"Bayonet mount" is a generic term, kind of like "screw" - I.E. just as there are a wide variety of screws and heads, specific mounts can and do vary wildly from each other.
Different specific mounts have different features and performance. For example, the bayonet mounts used for light bulbs aren't suitable for lenses because their depth would make a camera unwieldy, complicate optical design, and wear quickly because of the weight of the lens on the relatively small pins. Hence, lens mounts use typically tabs rather than pins. Light bulb mounts also suck at maintaining close and rigid alignment - something a lens mount absolutely must have. Lens mounts also use different retention features than a light bulb mount to facilitate quick changes and reduce the relative force required.

Wait, you're spreading actual information? But how can the trolls all yell, "Derp! Rounded corners! On a smartphone!"

I'm sorry but this has existed in one form or other on hundreds of different cameras for many decades! Simply adding one more camera to the list (iPhone) does not make it a new and patentable device! Clearly this is prior art and the patent should have been rejected by the patent office.

I'm sorry but this has existed in one form or other on hundreds of different cameras for many decades! Simply adding one more camera to the list (iPhone) does not make it a new and patentable device! Clearly this is prior art and the patent should have been rejected by the patent office.

Why is it that so many people think that the title is the patent (in this case the title of the news article, not even the patent title)? They're not patenting the idea of using any interchangeable camera lens on a phone. They are patenting a specific mechanism for an interchangeable camera lens. I'm not trying to say anything about the merits of the patent, just that it is certainly not trying to patent the idea of any and all interchangeable camera lenses on a phone.

I don't know why Apple would ever add a bayonet mount to a camera, it really messes with the smooth look they go for and makes for something really easy to break on a camera. Also anything recessed on a camera is going to get really dirty, and be very hard to clean - so this would mess with the camera for most people who never wanted to attach other lenses.

Instead I would expect them to do something like a magnetic mount - they could easily place a steel ring around the lens opening, even just under the surface, that lenses could clamp onto via magnets. External lenses don't need to be mounted in any particular orientation, just straight over the camera lens...

Also why is the story talking about adjustable lenses? That's not what the patent is about. It's only about the mount. Its not like I cannot already buy an iPhone case that has such a mount and attach lenses as it is.

I don't know why Apple would ever add a bayonet mount to a camera, it really messes with the smooth look they go for and makes for something really easy to break on a camera. Also anything recessed on a camera is going to get really dirty, and be very hard to clean - so this would mess with the camera for most people who never wanted to attach other lenses.

I'm guessing you don't actually own an iPhone and have never actually handled one - they're anything but smooth overall. In particular, there's already

I'm guessing you don't actually own an iPhone and have never actually handled onethere's already recesses which haven't shown any propensity to get really dirty.

There have never been any with a well the size and depth of a camera bayonet (the only real recess looking at my phone now is the silence button, which is too narrow to get much link or other debris). I know because I have an iPhone case that has a lens mount included - typically anyone with a camera case that has a hole for the camera (all of the

You could space the curved magnets around the periphery so they could be loosened by twisting. You could include a gentle depression on the perimeter to allow a release button on the lens to make that twist easier to perform when unlocked and much harder when locked. The lens would probably also need an outer weather seal that doubled as a soften auto-retractable snap buffer, so bringing the lens close wouldn't just snap on and shatter anything on either part. Also twisting on/off should partially clean the

Hundreds of (presumably) intelligent people all passing on an opportunity to prove that they can read. *Sigh*

Apple's patent was pretty specific - and probably intended to prevent third-party manufacturers from making attachable lenses for iJunk without cutting Apple in for a slice of the pie. If somebody were to devise a (similar but different) mechanism for a non-Apple smartphone, it would almost certainly differ sufficiently from Apple's mechanism to be allowed (but only after Apple attempted to sue and get an injunction, of course). Again - *Sigh*.

Let's also remember one other point - All the iPhones in existence were made by Apple, to the best of my knowledge. There are many manufacturers of Android devices. Apple may well be able to standardize their bayonet mount (their bat, their ball, their rules), but within the Android ecosystem such an item would require cooperation and buy-in from a majority of Android device manufacturers. Ever seen a horse designed by a committee? We call it a 'camel'.

Well, then it's a good thing that's not at all what the patent referenced in the article is. Not only that, but the claims don't even mention a phone. Okay, I get not reading the patent. Even not reading the article and making uninformed comments is pretty much standard protocol, but if you had even read past the 1st sentence in the summary it might have given you a clue that it's a little more than just "$PriorArt on a phone." Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of patents like that out there, this ju

because they just patent the apple attacher - and then just sue anyone doing the same with a smartphone.

also, the summary is incorrectly worded, because there have been many(more than 3) smartphones with moving zoom optics in the past decade(samsung has a model now that is basically an android phone bolted to a moderately sized pocket camera.).

Hell, i've got a shelf full of bayonet lenses for my film making endeavors.. Seriously, just because you make the phone come with a built-in mount, I'm not so sure that's patentable. We've been asking for that kind of crap for awhile now for those of us interested in shooting film (errrrrm... video) on cellphones (nokie n8 and 1020, for example). I mean, good on you, Apple, release it! But a patent?

Hypothetically, if you screwed a camera lens onto an iphone, the lens cylinder would project beyond the rectangular prism that is the iphone. And if you dropped that iphone, and it landed on the lens, it would probably stress that lens mount quite a bit.

I dont understand how this could be patented if it is already a thing, just on a different piece of hardware.

It's because it includes the phrase "on a computer".

You see, in addition to their computational uses, computers also have a "human memory erasure" capability. When you bring a computer near humans working with any old technology, all memory of that technology is erased, and the humans have to learn about its use from scratch.

This is a well-known phenomenon in the field of patent law, and is a major source of income for patent lawyers. And for the companies that manufacture the old technology, which b

A bizarre comment, since the whole point is NOT to be stuck with the tiny lens. As for the shitty sensor, like it or not but smartphones get the newest and best sensor technology first because that is the mass market, for example the iPhone 4 was one of the first consumer products with a backside illumination sensor. The old conventional wisdom was that "physics is physics" so nothing mattered by sensor size; that has been disproven.

It is true that sensors in top of the line phones get the latest technology. However, they also get low budget versions of that technology and they *are* tiny compared to full frame and medium format cameras.

One of the reasons people still use those bigger sensors is that the quality of the lens system used is less critical to prevent distortion if your sensor is bigger. If you use a 4*3 meter sensor (your wall) you can get amazing pictures with just a tiny hole in the curtains, you can do away with a le

You're still stuck with the shitty sensor and tiny lens on the camera itself, regardless of what hipster filter you stick on it.

So? There are numerous photographers doing amazing work with "shitty sensors and tiny lenses". An iPhone camera is every bit as much a real camera as the latest four figure offering from Canon or Nikon. A camera is only a sensor or surface for collecting light combined with something to focus the light onto that sensor or surface after all.Only a fool, a poseur, or a com

Except that the laws of physics dictate that equipment below certain size will have to compromise on at least some parameters. In this case, low-light conditions will probably suffer the most. Something like Sony DSC-QX10 (perhaps in a slightly more compact version) makes actually more sense to me.

True, and while that rig will give you higher picture quality (in an absolute objective technical sense), that doesn't necessarily translate into better pictures (in the artistic sense). Many think, as the grandparents seems to, that the former is a synonym for the latter - it isn't. While a better light capturing box will allow the photographer to do more things, ultimately the quality of a picture is set by the eye, hand, and brain... not the box.

"True, and while that rig will give you higher picture quality (in an absolute objective technical sense)"

"ultimately the quality of a picture is set by the eye, hand, and brain... not the box."

And two seconds later you conflate the terms again.;) I didn't notice anyone arguing about a photographers artistic ability except you. The argument seems to be specifically about the technical merits of smaller optics and sensor versus larger optics and sensor.

"If you can't tell the difference in meaning by the difference in phraseology, I seriously don't know what to say."

Phraseology is a particular thing. You don't have any phraseology. I think you mean context. Anyway... my point being the context of the term was already set by someone else to be the ability of a larger sensor and lens to make better pictures in the "technical sense". But you keep using it in another context - which conflates the terms because that is not what they are talking about. It's not

At the moment, there is no adjustable camera lens system in existence for smartphones, although there are lots of third party macro lens products that consumers can buy to clip onto their smartphone."

The need have been shown by third party, the next natural step is to integrate it.
There is no reason for this patent to be granted. Hopefully it is a joke but sadly enough it as obvious as it should be.

Okay, from all the silly things said in this discussion, this sure is in the top three - "because there are third party products, doing it different than any of them is totally obvious."